Chicken and egg argument: just because Y happened before X doesn't mean it is wrong.

I think the OP had a valid question about the confusion surrounding what has been stated by the developers about VST3 being unnecessary and what they are doing e.g. releasing a VST3 plug. 

Actually, which developers said VST3 was "unnecessary"? I think you're alluding to Noel who said pretty much anything VST3 can do could be done within the 2.4 framework.

And I don't think Noel had anything to do with the CA-2A either- unless I'm mistaken the main guy was a fellow called Bob Currie- don't know his feelings about VST3, do you?


Do prochannel modules use CPU if they are not processing audio?

It would be interesting to know which one of the CW staff said VST3 was unnecessary, here are a couple of Noel's replies in the last megathread http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.ashx?m=2653661 and http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.ashx?m=2654926

But that should not stop this thread from challenging that last for number of posts/reads. After all, post and read numbers matter, right :)

Just another thought, I would think those pressing the VST3 case would be heartened by Cakewalk's release of VST3 plugins (note the CA-2A is the second one) rather than acting confused and taking issue with Cakewalk's decision to support VST3.

I think the OP had a valid question about the confusion surrounding what has been stated by the developers about VST3 being unnecessary and what they are doing e.g. releasing a VST3 plug. 

No, this is not a valid question, it is a somewhat childish attempt to show that Cakewalk is being disingenuous or hypocritical about why they have not re-written Sonar to benefit from VST3.* They are marketing new plugs that are VST3 compliant because they are trying to sell those plugs cross platform and to users of other client software (DAW's). Whether Cakewalk philosophers truly believe that VST3 is a major breakthrough or not is irrelevant to a market that has been sold on the concept that VST2 is obsolete. 


I may think that driving a Ferrari to work is a waste of money and fuel, but if I am a Ferrari salesman, I am not going to try to sell you a Smart Car. 


It is far easier to code a plugin to VST3 than a DAW, and so far at least, Cakewalk has not found itself under such market pressure from VST3 compliant competing DAW's to move the mountain.


*They are probably being somewhat disingenuous, but maybe not hypocritical.

Dead Horse...

Move along...

Nothing to see here...

Officer Barbrady

backwoods


Actually, which developers said VST3 was "unnecessary"? I think you're alluding to Noel who said pretty much anything VST3 can do could be done within the 2.4 framework.

And I don't think Noel had anything to do with the CA-2A either- unless I'm mistaken the main guy was a fellow called Bob Currie- don't know his feelings about VST3, do you?


Do prochannel modules use CPU if they are not processing audio?

cakewalk... Noel works for them and the developer of CA-2A was contracted by... them. chicken and the egg and what are Bob's feelings. Gentlemen, I don't get this.

scook


It would be interesting to know which one of the CW staff said VST3 was unnecessary, here are a couple of Noel's replies in the last megathread http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.ashx?m=2653661 and http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.ashx?m=2654926

But that should not stop this thread from challenging that last for number of posts/reads. After all, post and read numbers matter, right :)

i took Noel comments to mean VST3 brought nothing new to the table. 

slartabartfast

I think the OP had a valid question about the confusion surrounding what has been stated by the developers about VST3 being unnecessary and what they are doing e.g. releasing a VST3 plug. 

No, this is not a valid question, it is a somewhat childish attempt to show that Cakewalk is being disingenuous or hypocritical about why they have not re-written Sonar to benefit from VST3.* They are marketing new plugs that are VST3 compliant because they are trying to sell those plugs cross platform and to users of other client software (DAW's). Whether Cakewalk philosophers truly believe that VST3 is a major breakthrough or not is irrelevant to a market that has been sold on the concept that VST2 is obsolete. 


I may think that driving a Ferrari to work is a waste of money and fuel, but if I am a Ferrari salesman, I am not going to try to sell you a Smart Car. 


It is far easier to code a plugin to VST3 than a DAW, and so far at least, Cakewalk has not found itself under such market pressure from VST3 compliant competing DAW's to move the mountain.


*They are probably being somewhat disingenuous, but maybe not hypocritical.

Who are you to judge what it is. I believe it is an attempt to open a discussion of what cakewalk's policy is with regards to VST3. Personally, I wish more developers would hold Steinberg accountable.

Exactly what is Cakewalk's "policy" regarding VST3? Noel says they plan to implement VST3 in SONAR. They are currently providing a couple of VST3 plugins. Would it be nice if SONAR supported VST3 now, sure. It would also be nice to have a better staff view, additional routing options, (insert your favorite enhancement here).... It is still unclear what the controversy is with respect to releasing plugins in VST3 format. How about some outrage and confusion that Cakewalk has released software for Macs and yet no SONAR for Macs.